"In hindsight, it wasn't worth it," he told ESPN The Magazine for a story gauging former players' opinions of the last lockout. "It was a waste of time. We thought we were stronger than we were. We started falling apart as the months clicked by."...."It's money you feel you never get back. At some point, we were sold a bill of goods," he said. "Everybody was buying it. Everybody thought, 'Let's not let each other down. Let's do it for the future of the game. Blah, blah, blah.' You're only in the game so long."...."I would say (to them) that it's not a battle you're going to feel like you're going to win," he said. "It's a negotiation. You feel at some point that both sides will be upset about what they have to give up."

Funny thing, though. You might think with all that practice Bettman and the owners would be a little smoother at trying to pull the wool over the fans' eyes. It was bad enough they spent the months leading up to the lockout bragging about record revenues in the seven years since the last lockout that saw the NHL grow from a $2.1-billion (all currency U.S.) business to a $3.3-billion one only to plead poverty a few days later. Not only that, one of the guys at the table demanding the players take a 24-per-cent pay cut because the salary cap system they demanded and won after an entire season was lost in 2004-05 is now not working, Minnesota Wild owner Craig Leipold, was fresh from signing two good but not great players to 13-year contracts worth $98-million each.

The owners are owners, they can do as they please. Legally anyhow. The CBA expired, they want a new system. They locked out the players. They could behave however they wanted under the old CBA until 11:59:59 PM on September 14th, 2012.

May the best man win? Business is the law the jungle? You are on your own? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Alls fair in love, war and business? It's nothing personal, it's just business?

And I must say, if the players want to be a union...you know with solidarity and what not. Any one of them who goes and takes a job from another professional in the same field is a speaking out of both sides of his mouth right...for them it's all about making money or is it all about fairness and jobs and protecting the players...hmm....

It may be old news for some but as someone who refused to pay any attention to this mess as long as there was anything hockey related to read instead, I found it pretty informative.

The article is quite good, however like most of the hockey media he is missing the point of the players proposal;

With the National Hockey League wanting player costs to drop immediately and the NHL Players' Association proposing instead to slow salaries against revenue growth, we're at an impasse. And the overwhelming answer to a question about how the gap can be bridged?

That isn't really what the players proposed.

The players proposed to remove linkage in exchange for a plan based around their own growth estimates.

The owners then have the option to revert back to the current 57% linked system or negotiate a new deal under the deadline that the players want.

If the players had proposed to keep the current system but reduce things slowly by say 2% per year, down to say 50%, (which is what most media types incorrectly believe they have) then we would probably be very close to a deal.

The media seem to be perpetuating the notion that the League needs an immediate reduction in order to make a deal. I do not think that is the case at all. I think the majority of owners are worried about their long term ROI and are looking at a system that will generate them long term returns and increase the asset value of their team.

The players on the other hand are probably totally against any type of roll back and rightfully so. They negotiated their contracts in good faith and would like to keep as much of them as possible.

That is probably where the resolution resides. The players will get to keep their current contracts and the owners will get the long term guaranteed profits that they are after.

Interestingly, Paul Kelly the PA leader ousted by Lindros, Hargrove and Pink (likely before Kelly's forensic auditors revealed the millions of dollars of union money LIndros and pals were spending) says the solution should be as simple as that Pot. The league IMO has honestly shown they are at least somewhat amenable to that type of proposal....they just ain't going to go there until the PA comes to the table under the same system.

The Friedman article does lay out some things but I think it also shows the players aren't in reality when they talk about the finances. The players seem to honestly think that for every dollar of concession or merchandise they should get 57 cents. Which is absurd. Sell a shirt for $20 and $11.40 goes to the players while after overheads, merchandise cost, salary etc about a buck would go to the owners. In the end Guerin is correct when he was talking about the NBA lock out. It's the owners league, they pay well, they can do what they want. Just accept it and move on.

Note on that Flames site a guy is posting that his NHL playing acquaintance (Salvador) is saying about 40% of the players want to settle now but the younger players and stars are telling them just to let the PA handle it. IF such a claim is truthful and accurate the PA will splinter quickly (though not a squickly as I thought as I forgot that in October they will get their escrow refunds from the year before which will help the players out).

Also of note today:

Bobby Mac on TSN radio saying that the players he talked to think about 22 or the 30 owners want to settle and that they only need to turn 2 more to get by the Bettman veto. On the other hand the OWNER he talked to says the number is exactly the opposite with 22 teams firmly behind Bettman and 8 being okay with settling. If the PA is wrong they are going to get destroyed (22 backing Bettman would firmly would match the various financial numbers you see). I would imagine that if 22 teams wanted to settle that veto or not the NHL would be settling.

Neither side really has the stomach for a protracted lock out. But egos being what they are with very competitive people it will take someone to break down first. It makes you realize how lucky the league was to have players like Linden the last time around. He was vilified in some circles but what he helped bring home made the players better off than they have ever been.

The average player, the bottom pairing D'man, the 3rd and 4th liners, the back up goalies, they are the ones who will suffer as they are for the most part easily replaceable and with an already short career they stand to lose a significant part of it.

Its easy for the star players earning big bucks or the up and coming stars to say hold out. I'm sure a lot of the younger guys want to reach UFA earlier but if they paid attention last time, they were run over by the PA which gladly gave into the owners on entry level contracts.

The PA needs some vocal guys who know just what they stand to lose if this thing drags out. It's not the Crosby's or OV's who will suffer but the guys who do the spade work. They have a very limited window in the NHL. Hopefully there will be a few of them that can take charge.

As for the owners, the rich teams, the well off teams, they want to play now but unfortunately there are too many teams that don't make money until after the World Series that couldn't care less. Bettman has tight control and won't go down easily.

Its too much to hope for common sense. Last time around most people I talked to were polarized with respect to who they supported. This time most people seem on the fence, they see both sides and don't overtly support one over the other. That alone should send a message to both sides. Unfortunately it means squat to anyone.

Mondi wrote:And I must say, if the players want to be a union...you know with solidarity and what not. Any one of them who goes and takes a job from another professional in the same field is a speaking out of both sides of his mouth right...for them it's all about making money or is it all about fairness and jobs and protecting the players...hmm....

I disagree. Unions do not say that you cannot apply for jobs elsewhere. And in team sports you always look for better players to add to the team. Have you ever played sports on a team? Were you ever upset if a better player offered to play with your team? If so, I don't think you understand the concept of team sports. Heck, I've often heard fans here complain that some players should not be on the team. Making the cut is not an entitlement. It's a right you have to earn. If there are better players available, those players should play.

If there is a strike or a lockout, and someone accepts to work instead of those who are on strike are have been locked out - that's a scab. I think in Sweden it's even illegal.

Workers on strike also often consider members of other unions or non-union workers who stay on during a strike scabs, but from a legal standpoint (at least in Sweden) that's not true. At least as long as they do not do the work of those on strike. Eg if the nurses are on strike, a doctor or a janitor staying on to do his/her work is not a scab, unless they do work that the nurses are supposed to do.

But if there is a workplace that is not under conflict, there's no strike or lockout going on, the employer can always hire new people. Those people are not scabs. There is currently no conflict going on in the KHL or the SEL*.

The rules for firing people vary. In Sweden you cannot be fired without cause. The employer must have a valid reason. If you steal office supplies, if you do not do your job, if you are a hazard to those around you... Those are all valid reasons. But they need to be substantiated.

As for players in Europe losing their job... If they are under contract, the contract is still binding, and they should be paid in full, even if they are riding the pine. Not sure how things work in Russia, I hear it's pretty lawless. Kind of like Chicago in the 1920's, so I guess there may be people there that get screwed over, but that's probably with or withot Ovechkin playing there. Thus taking in NHLers will add to the cost for the team, even if the players do like last time and play for free, because they still need insurance.

Now the marginal players in Sweden's second tier league, that are on a try out contract and don't make the cut because of a NHLer joining the team, should probably give up on hockey and stick to their day job anyway (unless they're in the early twenties and still have some untapped potential).

Furthermore, hockey venues in Sweden are only occassionally sold out. Thus bringing in better players will bring in more money at the gates and is also likely to attract more sponsor money. Since there are no owners in Swedish hockey that pocket this money, any surplusses are likely to increase the funds available for player salaries... Thus adding a couple of NHLers to the team may actually increase future wages for the players riding the pine this season. Typically these players will also not really be riding the pine, they are more likely to be lent to a team in a lower division, while still getting paid from the team that owns them. Thus the players in the third tier leagues will face better opposition, develop their game and may one day earn a spot on an NHL roster thanks to the lockout players coming here and raising the overall level of play.

Now, a worker on strike who works elsewhere during the strike is imho a hypocrite.

But a worker who has been locked out by his employer - it's only common sense that they try to find something else to do until they are let back in.

There's a huge difference between being on strike and being locked out. Kind of like the difference between mugging some one and being mugged.In the former case you're the perpetrator, in the second you're the victim.

In this case it's a lock out, and I do not see anything wrong at all with a locked out player finding other employment till the conflict is resolved. Had it been a strike, it would be a completely different matter.

- - -

*Actually, "Svenska Hockeyligan" an organisation that all SEL teams are members of, has been sued for collusion, since all teams have agreed not to add any NHLers, which may be a breech of anti-trust laws. A court verdict is expected later today.

Last edited by Per on Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Per wrote:In this case it's a lock out, and I do not see anything wrong at all with a locked out player finding other employment till the conflict is resolved. Had it been a strike, it would be a completely different matter.

- - -

*Actually, "Svenska Hockeyligan" an organisation that all SEL teams are members of, has been sued for collusion, since all teams have agreed not to add any NHLers, which may be a breech of anti-trust laws. A court verdict is expected later today.

Per wrote:In this case it's a lock out, and I do not see anything wrong at all with a locked out player finding other employment till the conflict is resolved. Had it been a strike, it would be a completely different matter.

- - -

*Actually, "Svenska Hockeyligan" an organisation that all SEL teams are members of, has been sued for collusion, since all teams have agreed not to add any NHLers, which may be a breech of anti-trust laws. A court verdict is expected later today.

The owners are owners, they can do as they please. Legally anyhow. The CBA expired, they want a new system. They locked out the players. They could behave however they wanted under the old CBA until 11:59:59 PM on September 14th, 2012.

May the best man win? Business is the law the jungle? You are on your own? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Alls fair in love, war and business? It's nothing personal, it's just business?

And I must say, if the players want to be a union...you know with solidarity and what not. Any one of them who goes and takes a job from another professional in the same field is a speaking out of both sides of his mouth right...for them it's all about making money or is it all about fairness and jobs and protecting the players...hmm....

The Swedish Competition Authority’s prohibition is an interim decision and applies until the matter has been finally decided.

In the context of the competition rules, ice hockey clubs are to be regarded as undertakings. Cooperation between undertakings is not permitted if it restricts competition.

“The decision of Hockeyligan may be likened to a cartel. Joint decisions made by clubs to boycott certain players are not permitted under the competition rules,” says Per Karlsson, Chief Legal Officer at the Swedish Competition Authority.

Hockeyligan’s decision deprives each club of the ability to act independently with regard to the recruitment of players. Individual clubs must make their own decisions about the players they wish to sign.“Each club must be able to make their own, independent decisions about investments,” says Per Karlsson.

The Swedish Competition Authority’s prohibition is an interim decision and applies until the matter has been finally decided.

In the context of the competition rules, ice hockey clubs are to be regarded as undertakings. Cooperation between undertakings is not permitted if it restricts competition.

“The decision of Hockeyligan may be likened to a cartel. Joint decisions made by clubs to boycott certain players are not permitted under the competition rules,” says Per Karlsson, Chief Legal Officer at the Swedish Competition Authority.

Hockeyligan’s decision deprives each club of the ability to act independently with regard to the recruitment of players. Individual clubs must make their own decisions about the players they wish to sign.“Each club must be able to make their own, independent decisions about investments,” says Per Karlsson.

Perhaps that definition is one that needs to be highlighted here, an undertaking or co operation for the purposes of providing athletic competition for profit. the owners provide the real estate and capital, the players provide the expertise and personality which is a huge component btw that drives this whole thing and is difficult to quantify for purposes of HRR...

which brings it right back to 50/50 which is great but at the last minute before the handshake, the little prick has gotta mutter under his breath yeah but my half is bigger than your half because HRR doesn't include these extra revenue streams...

I'd love to hear a player with a dose of integrity stand up and tell the media, "Ya know what, this is about greed on both parts. We (the players), for the most part, have played a game all our lives on the dollar of somebody else, be that our parents, our grandparents, scholarships, junior team, and finally NHL owners who not only pay for our game playing but also pay us handsomely to go out and do what we love. And, after it's all said an done, the average annual NHL player salary ($2.45M) is actually more money than the average person in North America will make in 50 years, and that is assuming an average salary of $50K per year (which is above the average). So when I think that our strike is costing some of the working-class people in this country money that they count on just to pay their monthly bills, yeah we should be settling, and yes the fans that ultimately pay our wages deserve a helluvalot more respect from us than they are getting."

Of course any player that said that would probably be in violation of a dozen different union clauses and find himself ostracized by his peers. I think there are more than a few players that recognize this, and I'm just speculating here, but I get that sense when there are some notable faces that appear absent from all the media scrums and are certainly not among Fehr's media posse.

As for myself, well when I hear a guy live Ovechkin making statements in which he says that the players deserve to get what they get for playing hockey, then here a guy like Crosby spin it so that it sounds like the league is being unreasonable, and then listen to guys like Giroux make a comment about how there are guys that need jobs.....I just shake my head. I just can't respect any of these players.

I'm really not sure how anyone can side with the players when the players are so clearly trying to spin this against the owners. To date the league and owners have not put any spin on anything. They have been clear about what they want and they have been clear about their intentions. They have not made any negative comments in regards to the players or the PA. Simply stated facts. The players are out of touch with reality, that much is clear. And when you have a large percentage of players actually in a place where they could end up getting shafted by this process, and a small percentage that are already filthy rich and only looking to get richer, there is no respect left to be had for them.

My own take for the players is that I understand and am fine with them fighting the salary rollback. I think that that is the only area where the owners are being unreasonable. You offer a contract, you sign it, then you should honor it. Not ask the other party to give some of it back a couple of years later. Fair is fair. The players should fight to keep that which they've signed too. Existing individual player contracts should go the distance. The CBA, however, is an expired contract, the owners are free to re-negotiate it and even completely scrap it and offer an entirely new deal. This is no different than when a player's personal contract expires with his team. Both sides can decide what they feel is deserved in the new deal, and any time a player truly over values himself he often ends up signing for less with another team. If the owners want to have shorter terms on contracts and lower the overall cap and limit the maximum salary to as "little" as even $6M per year, they are free to do so, but players with existing individual contracts should be grandfathered in until such a time as their existing contracts expire. Any new CBA should reflect such agreements and salary caps and costs should be structured accordingly. So if a team has 3 players that are being paid $7.5M per year, but the league max is $6M per year, then their salaries should reflect as cap hits of $6M against the team overall. The player should still receive his $7.5M because that was agreed upon. If his contract expires in 2 years, then at that time he will end up taking a pay cut when he re-signs at the league max (assuming he deserves it).

Ultimately it is the owners money and they can choose to regulate it amongs themselves as they see fit. If the players don't like it they can always go find another job. Chances are the only league that is going to pay them more than the NHL, should the NHL set the bar low on salaries is the KHL (by low I mean caps of $55M or less and a max salary of 12% of team cap).....and to be honest I really don't think even the KHL would be offering a plethora of contracts in the $7M range. There would be some, like Ovechkin, who would get big money to go, but I imagine that many of the NHL's superstars would rather stay in the NHL and play in North America for $6.6M rather than go to Russia for $7M-8M.